Posted on 08/19/2007 3:38:06 PM PDT by TSchmereL
I think I've fairly summarized the internally-inconsistent complaint, here.
America is bad because we have tried to please every party....we should instead be more nuanced.
If I Google just the terms "Janus-Faced" and "nuanced" from this article, I get a helluva a lotta John F. Kerry hits.
Not every one.
"Saddam was hanged at dawn on Saturday for crimes against humanity after Iraq's prime minister rushed through an execution few believed would help stem the sectarian violence tearing the country apart."
Forgot to ping you to my link above. It’s a very interesting blog.
ping for later
My computer is having difficulty getting to the NYT website. I’ll try again in a couple of hours.
Be careful:
"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
Is there assessment completely negative? That’s not how I read the article. What they seem to be saying (to paraphrase badly) is that if we abandon the idea of having an Iraq which squares up precisely with American goals we are more likely to succeed sooner. If we hold out for unrealistic goals, we won’t even be able to achieve compromise objectives.
oops, *their assessment*
I’m not talking about intelligence, I’m talking about experience. This is a pretty broad sweeping article about the situation in Iraq. They likely wouldn’t have access to the intelligence to back up the assertions made in it. I think these sargeants have the character not to speculate about things they don’t know about, for example refugee camps outside the borders. I think someone else other than them did the bulk of the writing.
They may not have access to military intelligence, but I’ve heard there are forums where soldiers exchange intelligence and information online (securely). I’m not saying that’s what happened here, or that it justifies all of their statements, but it is a possibility.
Anyway, whoever wrote it, they signed their names to it, so they are responsible for the accuracy of the information.
I thought their assessment was pretty neutral. Their experience seems to match up with others who have served in the area, but it is the NY Times. The reason some here are upset is probably because it differs from the 100% optimistic, “everything is going great” assessment they desire. My issues were with the posters that called these soldiers clowns, and suggested they be tried for treason because they couldn’t possibly know all that is going on in Iraq. Of course the posters calling names, hadn’t been there at all.
I have issues with respecting soldiers who serve our country. In my opinion soldiers have earned the right to whatever opinion they have, and should feel free to share it. They have put their lives on the line for our democracy, and are certainly entitled to their own.
I agree with you completely.
Just heard Hewitt say that we have killed 10-12,000 scumbags in the last five months. That is WAYYYY better attrition than Rummy ever had. Still not enough by half by my calculations - but it is a start.
The Shia clerical establishment had no thought in 1920 of ruling Irag as the natural majority. To say otherwise is to project modern thinking back in time. Their thinking then , as now, was centered on control of the shrines. Furthermore, the population of the new Iraq state was quite small, a fifty of what it is now, if that, The Sunni had very little respect for shrines, and we have seen how they have treated them. The Sunni, on their part, always think of themselves as the majority, and during the years became accustomed to rule in Iraq.
They certainly have the right to be wrong. And they have got the country and the history wrong. Like most they just don’t get the religious part, nor how it factors into the tribalism. About the last, of course,. we need to remember that it also changes with events and sometimes invisibly because we don’t really know the players in that game.
The News That Doesn't Fit
Seven Iraq war vets and members of Vets for Freedom respond to the New York Times Seven, of the 82nd Airborne, whose op-ed column appeared in the paper this past Sunday. They respond in a terrific column for the Standard. Among the seven co-authors of the Standard column is our friend (and Minnesota native) Pete Hegseth. The column concludes:
We understand the frustration our fellow soldiers feel. All of us were in Iraq before the "surge" and lament never seeing a coherent, security-based counterinsurgency strategy. In truth, we were only clearing--not holding.But we also know what's possible when even small portions of counterinsurgency strategy are applied. Insurgents are exposed, leaders stand up, and stability occurs. General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker understand the principles of counterinsurgency and are applying them up and down the chain of command. It's unfortunate that soldiers in the 82nd Airborne have not yet benefited from the new strategy, but it will ensure that their actions, and those of their fallen brethren, will not have been in vain.
Meanwhile, we applaud our brothers in the 82nd Airborne for their courage under fire, thank them for their commitment to our nation, and pray for the recovery of their injured co-author.
You have to read to the end to find this item of interest:
This Op-Ed was originally submitted to the New York Times, which declined to publish it.
This follow up, and the Times refusal to publish it, deserve a lot of study...and perhaps are a story in themselves. Unfortunately, I have no time right now.
Is anyone surprised? Rebuttal? Debate? What's that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.